Feed on
Posts
Comments

Tangible Kingdom – A Charitable Critique

May 15th, 2012 by Brett

Hugh Halter and Matt Smay, the authors of Tangible Kingdom, have poured their heart into ministry for many years.  They have experienced the highs and the lows that come from real ministry. Some authors started a church straight out of seminary and became a huge success story and wrote books for everyone to learn how to be like them. This is not one of those books, and for that I am glad.

“I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:6 ESV). Job laments that “The tents of robbers are at peace, and those who provoke God are secure, who bring their god in their hand” (Job 12:6). Malachi also struggled with this lamenting that “we call the arrogant blessed. Evildoers not only prosper but they put God to the test and they escape” (Malachi 3:15). Jonah was disobedient and saw a massive revival under his preaching, while poor faithful Jeremiah was told ” So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you” (Jeremiah 7:27 ESV).

The failure stories in Tangible Kingdom are a breath of fresh air to the vast majority of pastors whose heart identifies with Jeremiah’s plight. While the authors have experiences real failure, they did not become completely jaded and abandon the church as so many have. They saw many things that could be improved, and they have once again poured themselves into the church, into ministry. They confess as much on p xx saying, “our heart is for the church, both existing and emerging.”

Early on they tip their hand to emergent leaning.  It is hard to know just what “emerging” means from one person to another, all you can do read and learn. It’s not long before some of root reasons for the emerging church surface. “We’re not measuring success by huge leaps in attendance or a shiny new building. . . . Our goal isn’t to attract Christian people to our way of worship service but to be the faithful church in small pockets throughout our city.” I readily identify with these sentiments.

I have grown up in, continue to pastor in, and have a deep affinity for the traditional church. I have deep disagreements with much of the emerging church and what are clearly overreactions. Yet I have also fought against much of the market-driven, hot-tub religion that characterized so much of evangelicalism. Suffice it to say, I agree with a lot that the authors have to say, but I also believe that they overstate or mis-state their case in ways that are unhelpful or even dangerous. All that to say, this chapter-by-chapter review, I hope, will be a charitable critique.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted in Book Review, Church | No Comments »

A Philosophy of Education

May 2nd, 2012 by Brett

My wife and I home-school our children. Michelle does all of the heavy lifting of course, but I played the leading role in choosing the philosophy of education and consequently the curriculum we would go with. I make no claim of expertise, but having thought through a few things on my own, I thought I’d share some about my philosophy of education for whoever may benefit from or improve upon my thoughts.

There is quite a lot I have thought through in terms of learning styles and various models (Charlotte Mason, Mastery, Classical, etc), but I want to focus my attention elsewhere in this post. One of the main criticisms from the public of home-schooling is that the kids will be socially backwards. For the most part I think this criticisms miss the mark. If socialism is the ability to interact on various levels with relative ease, then locking a 7 year old in a room with 30 other 7 year olds is hardly going to promote good social skills. This aside, I think that the kids will be as adjusted as their parents care to make them. Certainly there are parents who completely shelter their children and therefore their kids may not know very well how to engage strangers. But when I was home-schooled, my parents had me involved in boy scouts, 4-H, home-school co-ops, etc. I got plenty of interaction. In fact I was a very shy and introverted kid until after the time I was home-schooled. I don’t know if home-school remedied my poor social skills, but there was an interesting correlation.

Related to the question of socialism is how the parents attend the education of their kids more properly speaking. Again, there are many people who home school just because they don’t want their kids to learn about evolution and homosexuality and other such ‘forbidden” subjects. These people tend to shelter their kids intellectually just as others may shelter them socially. That is not why my wife and I decided to homeschool. We did it because we thought we could provide a superior education that way.

I don’t want to shelter my children from the world, I want to equip them for it. I can do my best to provide for them a solid creation based science education and never expose them to that evil Darwin, but I think I would be doing them a dis-service that way. Once they leave the house and maybe go to college, they will come face to face with some intelligent, articulate, winsome atheistic evolutionist (among many other philosophies and worldviews). If they have never been exposed, it may rock their world. They may have been told that evolutionists are the most incompetent numb-skulls on the planet, but when they meet an intelligent one it could rock their world. I don’t want to shelter my kids I want to equip them.

I want my kids to know evolution better than most public schooled kids. I want them reading the best of what the world has to offer. I want them to read Hume, and Freud, and Nietzsche, and Darwin. I want them reading these classics (and more) and I want them reading their modern stalwarts and popularizers. . . but I want them to do it under my watch. I want to interact on all of that material. I don’t want my kids to see a caricature. I want them to see the best that the world has to offer and why I think the Christian worldview is superior. I want them to see God’s common grace working in unbelievers. They need to recognize the insights that God has given to unbelieving mathematicians, artists, scientists, etc. I also want them to see where they err. I want them to benefit from the meat and spit out the bones. I believe in a liberal education. See here (sorry for the goofy formatting, just scroll down and squint.) http://gracemccook.org/blog/?p=270

I take a similar approach in my philosophy of education in the church. I want my people reading good books. I recommend them. I plug them. I review them. I make them available. But I also know that my people do not live in the church. They will go into the world. They will see other books (and may even read them). Friends, family, co-workers, or peers in general may give them books to read. I know that they will be exposed to less than desirable books outside of the church gathered, so I want to equip them. I want to teach them good theology and solid thoughts. But just like at home, I don’t want to merely teach them what to think, I want to teach them how to think. We need to be able to read a book charitably and benefit from the meat. We also need to be able to read critically and spit out the bones. The books that are a “mixed bag” are ones I want us to work through as a group so people can see how to spot the good and the bad.

I’m sure there are better methods and things I may have missed, but that is part of the beauty of community (even an electronic one like this). As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. I’d be interested in hearing from you. Soli Deo Gloria!

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Church | No Comments »

Christless Christianity

Apr 17th, 2012 by Brett

The American Captivity of the Church

This is tagged as a book review, but really it is just a collection of quotes that I found particularly striking.

The focus still seems to be on us and our activity rather than on God and his work in Jesus Christ. In all these approaches there is the tendency to make God the supporting character in our own life movie rather than to be written as new characters in God’s drama of redemption. Assimilating the disruptive, surprising and disorienting power of the gospel to the felt needs, moral cries, and socio-economic headlise of our passing age we end up saying so little that the world would not hear from Dr. Laura, Dr. Phil and Oprah.18

“Lacking the confidence in our story to effect that of which it speaks, to evoke a new people out of nothing, our communication looses its nerve. Nothing is said that could not be heard elsewhere. . . In conservative contexts, gospel speach is traded for dogmatic assertion and moralism, for self-help psychologies and narcotic mantra. In more liberal speech, talk tiptoes around the outrage of Christian discourse and ends up as an innocuous, though urbane affirmation of the ruling order. Unable to preach Christ and him crucified we preach humanity and it improved. – William Willamon (p25)

Reacting against a legalistic and self-righteous tendency in their childhood, many Americans have abandoned the church altogether. Those who return often do so on their own terms. The message must be light and affirming; the form in which it is presented must be entertaining and inspirational. They are ready for something useful and helpful but not something jarring and disturbing. – 34

Growing churches and growing business follows the same standard procedures of pragmatic efficiency. Not only evangelism, but the Christian life can be accommodated to  modern secularization and routinization. There are standard procedures that work whether producing conversions and moral improvement or producing the greatest number of widgets for the least amount of expenditure. Of course no one has to explicitly deny any article of the Christian creed in order to shift the focus from the public truth content of Christianity to the subjective pragmatic and therapeutic categories of how to religion. Christ may still be called Savior but we really save ourselves by following the steps of the new birth and victorious living. 54

Similarly today, the preaching of the law in all of its gripping judgment and the preaching of the  gospel in all of its surprising sweetness merge into a confused message of gentle exhortation to a more fulfilling life. Consequently we neither know how to mourn nor how to throw a real party. – 63

When pastors are expected to be coaches sending in the plays and their parisoners are expected to be all-stars to take Jesus’ team to victory in the culture wars, the focus must necessarily fall on what we do rather than on what God has done, on our stories and strategies rather than God’s. – 106

Find me on my best day, especially if you have access to my hidden thoughts and motives and attitudes – and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think that I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. – 117

After a month of Sundays with exhortation without Good News, one might ask, “But what about the part of God persevering in spite of human sin and over coming it for us at the cross?”"Well of course, but everybody here already believes that. Now we just need to get on with living it out.” – 120

Our default setting is law rather than gospel, imperatives (things to do or feel) rather than indicatives (things to believe). It is the law, not the gospel that is a “Well of course but…” – 131

This means that the church is not a club for those with similar cultural tastes, political views, ethnic backgrounds, and moral leanings. They do not meet because they share a hobby called spirituality or because they have the same vision for transforming culture. . . Unlike voluntary associations (book clubs, political parties, or fans of the opera or garage bands), the church is not made up of people I choose to be my friends. -

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Book Review | Comments Off

Our (Church) Family Relationships

Jul 11th, 2011 by Brett

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him. [32] And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.” [33] And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” [34] And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! [35] For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.” (Mark 3:31-35 ESV)

Looking at Mark 3 we see how Jesus turned the world of these Jews upside down. Family meant everything. Being an Israelite meant everything. There was great pride in being part of a certain tribe. The family, your blood relationships, meant everything. Jesus took them for a spin when he redefined the family as those who do the will of the God.
This was, and still is a fairly radical teaching. There is a saying that blood is thicker than water. But Jesus says otherwise. Through the waters of baptism we signify that we have joined the family of God whose bond is close than that of your physical family. Is that how you view the people sitting next to you? Do you view them as closer than your physical family? Do you see how shocking that is?
Ideally your physical family will also be believers and so be your spiritual family too. But let me just challenge you to think about one another as real brothers and sisters. Real family.
I believe that the first century church took this to heart because we see that it was almost the norm that they referred to one another as “brother.” 1 Tim 5 talks about how we should treat the older women in the church as mothers and the younger women in the church as sisters.

I want to create a church of real community and real family and real fellowship. Part of how we do that is through the words we use. The way the church has been speaking, for several decades now, concerns me. We are filling this space with less-than-biblical air. When we keep breathing less-than-biblical air, it gets into our lungs and into our bloodstream.
It makes me nervous when I hear pastors talking about being a CEO. That kind of thing just doesn’t compute. Since scripture regularly refers to the church as a family and regularly uses familial terms, we should think along those lines. At home I am not pursuing a career as a father and a husband. It is a calling, not a career. I am called to be a husband and a father. It would just be weird if my children referred to me as their division president. It would be odd for my wife to refer to me as her CEO. That’s not who I am. I am a husband and a father. My wife takes care of the finances in our home, but we do not refer to her as our CFO. That’s not who she is, she is a wife and a mother.
It makes me nervous when I hear pastors talk about their career goals. My family is not a corporate ladder I am trying to climb. It just doesn’t make any sense to talk about career goals as a parent or a husband. My family is not a business.
All these words give a sense of business rather than family. Another one that I hear a lot is church marketing. We often present Christianity as though Jesus were a product that we had to convince people to buy. Jesus is reduced to the level of a box of laundry detergent or a can of pop. But Jesus is not a product to buy, he is a King to be obeyed. We are not his salesmen, but his heralds. Let us breath the clean air of biblical relationships.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Church, Sermon Excerpt | Comments Off

Ringing Bell

May 6th, 2011 by Brett

I saw this and I couldn’t resist posting it.

Tags: , ,

Posted in Humor | Comments Off

Membership is Street Theology

Apr 28th, 2011 by Brett

Toward the beginning of this series on the church we made a distinction between the church universal and the church local. The church universal is all people throughout time who have been redeemed. The local church is temporally and geographically limited. Grace Baptist church exists here in McCook, not in Zimbabwe. It exists now in the 21st century AD not in the fifth century BC. The local church is the engine, it is the workhorse, it is a concrete manifestation of the church universal. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where the living happens. This is where we put shoe leather to our theology.
You may say you believe in unity, but how are you upholding this in our local church? You may say that you believe in forgiveness, but how does that play out in real life with real people who offend you? You may say you love Jesus, but if you do not love the church, then you do not love Jesus. In Acts 9:3-4 when Paul was imprisoning Christians and approving of their execution we read: Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.  [4] And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
Matthew 25:38-40 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? [39] And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ [40] And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
God views the church as an extension of himself. If we serve and love the church then we serve and love Jesus. And if you persecute the church then you are persecuting Jesus. This is where the rubber hits the road. If you claim to love Jesus and claim to value unity and claim to value patience, this is the crucible in which all of that is tested.
There are many sins that are given a pass under the claim that “I am part of the church universal.” So what? You should also be a part of the church local where you live out the Christian life. It is like the deadbeat dad who says that he is part of the universal family of mankind. Well so what? You also have a real family. There is a real wife that you need to love and care for. There are real children that you need to provide for and cherish. People who think that they can do church from home are deluding themselves. People who think they can do Internet church are deceiving themselves. That is not church. You need to be with real people showing real patience, real love, real friendship and promoting real unity, real peace, real service and real encouragement. This is where the rubber meets the road.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Ecclesiology, Living, Sermon Excerpt | Comments Off

The Eternity of Hell

Mar 30th, 2011 by Brett

One of the major objections that people raise with regard to the doctrine of hell is that it is unjust to punish for eternity for only a lifetime of sins (75 yrs give or take). I wanted to note a few things in response.

First, that is not an exegetical argument. Scripture is our final authority and this objection does not touch upon what scripture teaches. We would know nothing of the afterlife if it were not for scripture. Unless God reveals something about what happens to us after death, we will know nothing. This is not to say that we cannot ask questions such as these, only that such questions are not sufficient. At some point we have to make our case in scripture.

Second, it seems odd to believe that the unregenerate will become completely holy once they die. But that has to be the presupposition for this objection to work. However, if people continue to sin for eternity, then it is appropriate to punish them for eternity. I like the description that NT Wright gives:

So my way of describing it is that once this life is over, people who have decided not to worship God cease to bear God’s image. The thought of an ex-human being is something that some people find shocking and horrifying. In a sense, it is shocking and horrifying. Think about people we know! I’m sure most people, unless we live in very enclosed worlds, must know some people (if we truly hold to a theology of hell) who are going there! That should give us pause. That should cause us to pray for them and to weep over them. So I don’t say this with any relish at all.

We will not become holy and perfect, we will likely degenerate even more. We will not become more like God. As Wright says, we become like what we worship. For believers that means that we are being conformed to the image of Christ. But for those who have rejected God and refuse to worship him, they continually diverge from the image of Christ. In hell, without God’s common grace helping to restrain sin, people will likely degenerate to even greater levels of sin and therefore merit greater punishment.

Third, can we necessarily equate an eternal punishment with and infinite punishment? Infinite is a measure that needs a unit – infinite apples, infinite love, infinite space, infinite time (eternity). “Eternal” answers the question, “How long?” “Infinite” answers the question “How much?” They are not the same thing. Jesus himself indicated that there would be degrees of punishment in hell. But here is the problem. If eternal in duration means that the punishment is infinite, then everyone will experience an infinite punishment. But if that is the case, then there are not degrees of punishment as Jesus said.

The problem is in assuming that eternal punishment is equal to an infinite punishment. They are not the same. Consider this function: f(x)=1/(1+x^2). The integral of this function is plotted below.

Evaluated from zero to infinity, it resolves to a value of less than 1.571. Not all functions evaluated to infinity result in an infinite value. Asymptotic functions resolve to finite values. This is not to suggest that this is actually how God works the punishment. But it does prove that, in theory, a finite amount of punishment can be experienced over an infinite duration.

This objection against the doctrine of hell has a certain rhetorical flare to it, but it is not really sustainable upon closer examination. Let God be God and develop your doctrine from his revelation, not from your gut.

Tags: , , ,

Posted in Apologetics, Eschatology, Hell, Theology | Comments Off

Thought on the Rob Bell Controversy – Part 6

Mar 28th, 2011 by Brett

These are all still preliminary comments about all the activity I see surrounding Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. Many people seem confused as to why there would be such an impassioned defense of the doctrine of hell. Why do people love this doctrine so much? Here is my attempt at an asnwer.

IF the traditional doctrine of hell is correct, then if we love people, it would be the most hateful thing in the world to let them go there without sharing the good news of Jesus Christ that would save them from it. It is not because people find hell to be such a beautiful doctrine that they fight for it, it is because people find it to be so horrible that they don’t want anybody to go there.  It is because they love people that they are so motivated. It is like discovering that a bridge is out. You are trying to warn people so that they will not, in the fog, go over the bridge and die. Then someone begins to oppose that message saying, “Naw, the bridge is just fine.” That is something that is very dangerous to say. That is how most people who are convinced of the doctrine of hell react. Perhaps you think they are mistaken and that the bridge really is just fine. In which case they are just inconveniencing a lot of people by insisting that they stop their car. But it is easy to understand why there is such fervency in people’s defense of this doctrine. It is a very important question to answer. If we get it wrong, it could be fatal.

Even rank unbelievers get this. Atheist Penn Jillet (of the Penn & Teller magic team) said the following:

“If you believe that there’s a heaven and hell and people could be going to hell—or not getting eternal life or whatever—and you think that, well, it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. . . . How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

So if you believe that it is true, how much do you have to hate somebody to tell them that they will have a second chance? Again this is presuming that it is true. I will get to that later. But for now, it is easy to see why some people would give such a passionate defense of the doctrine. They love people and they believe hell is real. How can you not warn people?

Spurgeon has some powerful words as well:

To be laughed at is no great hardship for me. I can delight in scoffs and jeers. . . . But that you should turn from your own mercy, this is my sorrow. Spit on me, but oh repent! Laugh at me, but, oh, believe in my Master! Make my body as the dirt in the streets, but do not damn your own souls. . . If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies. And if they perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one person go there unwarned and unprayed for. . . The Holy Spirit will move them by first moving you. If you can rest without their being saved, they will rest, too. But if you are filled with an agony for them, if you cannot bear that they are lost, you will soon find that they are uneasy, too. (HT to Collin Hansen for mining these quotes)

If it is real, how can we not tell people about the good news, and how can we not speak loudly aganst those who seem to urge people to drive over a bridge that we believe is out? This is what is at stake. I would love to be wrong. But when people’s lives are at stake, it seems best that we not treat this as a minor point that doesn’t really matter.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Apologetics, Eschatology, Hell | Comments Off

Thoughts on the Rob Bell Controversy – Part 5

Mar 24th, 2011 by Brett

Continuing my review of Mars Hill’s clarifying statements.

Does Love Wins promote Universalism?

No. Rob isn’t suggesting Universalism [all will be saved, regardless of their faith]. He is proposing that God’s love is so big that the invitation to God’s grace may extend into the next life so that all could be saved.

Atctually, this is a form of universalism. They wrongly define universalism as “all will be saved, regardless of their faith.” That is one form of universalism (more narrowly known as inclusivism), but there are many varieties, and Rob Bell’s position fits perfectly under the umbrella of universalism. His position (as much as has been revealed thus far) can be what is known as “evangelical universalism” or “hopeful universalism.” There are many different and even contradictory forms of universalism out there. It is improper for them to pick just one and say that they are therefore not a unilateralist. That is a category mistake. It is like saying “My Springer Spaniel is not a dog [German Shepherd].”

Love Wins clearly points to the centrality of Jesus and the work of his life, death, and resurrection and the hope that Christ’s work will bring restoration to all. Jesus is the only way to God. God’s love does not force anyone and there may be those who continue to reject the invitation extended to them. Love Wins speaks often speaks of human freedom [72-73, 103-104, 113, 115, 117]. Rob shares, “Love demands freedom. It always has, and it always will. We are free to resist, reject, and rebel against God’s ways for us. We can have all the hell we want.” [113]

There is a tension here. Either some people will continue to resist or love wins all. Both cannot happen. They redefine hell again as just bad experiences we have, but that is not the biblical notion. I would also take exception to the notion that love does not force itself. It sounds nice in the abstract, but at a concrete level it doesn’t work. I love my kids with all my heart, and if my 2 yr old was wondering into the street, and a car was coming, I would forcibly yank them out of the street whether they liked it or not. I don’t see how I could profess to love them if I just let them go.

Some may object that while that may be true in saving the life of an child, it is not true with marrying someone. Love will not force itself. But we are not consigned to hell because we wouldn’t marry Jesus. We are consigned to hell because of our sins and the fact the we reject God’s only means of salvation. Perhaps a better analogy is someone who is drowning. They got into their predicament through their own actions. You throw them a line so that they can grab hold and be saved. They refuse. What do you do? In love do you leave them there, or in love do you jump in to save them? You’re a strong swimmer and you know you can do it. Maybe they will hate you if you actually save them. But what does love compel you to do?

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Eschatology, Heaven, Hell | 2 Comments »

Thoughts on the Rob Bell Controversy – Part 4

Mar 21st, 2011 by Brett

Continuing my review of the clarifying statement from Bell’s church:

What does Love Wins say about heaven and hell?

Love Wins recognizes heaven and hell to be realities all around us. We see hell everyday through the atrocities of war, famine, human trafficking, broken relationships, and abuse. We also see heaven all around us through acts of love, kindness, and compassion.

The first sentence is a bit anachronistic. Scripture never speaks of “hell on earth.” In contemporary usage of the term I can agree with what is said, there are all kinds of atrocities to which people turn a blind eye. We must never do that. I also agree with the notion of restoring the earth. I think that is part of the logical outworking of the creation mandate, and I think that is part of what the gospel itself entails. God is in the process of rolling back the curse and the church must play a pivitol role in this process. We are his body carrying on his work. So I agree with much of what is said here in contemporary terms.

The danger, however, is in the possibility of confusing our contemporary usage with Biblical usage. Acts of love, kindness, and compassion may be performed by and on non-believers. But you will search in vain for biblical support for unbelievers being in heaven. Likewise, while believers can and do experience some of the most horrific treatments (though not much in the west) there is no biblical evidence for believers going to hell. This sets the stage (especially for lay people) for some very confused theology. They may wrongly infer that believers can experience hell (in the biblical sense) and unbelievers can experience heaven (in the biblical sense). If that is the case, then one’s experience of heaven or hell is not a matter of Jesus at all. It is more a matter of how we position ourselves in this world to minimize our exposure to unpleasant things.

There is also the reality of heaven and hell in the future. Our ultimate future hope is a restored creation under Christ where God will dwell with us forever on a restored heaven and earth [Rev 21-22]. There are many who accept the invitation of the life of heaven and many who reject the invitation.

No real arguments here. I would, however add that I think it can be a present reality too. Scripture speaks of heaven and hell as another realm, separate from earth, to which people go when they die.

Those who reject the invitation experience a purifying “fire” of judgment in hell, yet there is hope.

Here is where we begin to have problems. We have no indication in scripture that you can get out of hell. It is a nice idea, but there is no real biblical support for it. There are vague references with universal language, but nothing specific. Moreover we do have specific references that militate against universalism.

We live in the hope that the redemptive work of Christ is beyond what we can ask or imagine. Love Wins helps us have a biblical imagination that leaves room for the hope of the redemption of all while recognizing humanities free will to continue to reject God.

Amen to the first sentence! I even like the beginning of the second sentence. A “biblical imagination.” I have often contemplated the new heavens and the new earth with my kids. I always make it clear that we are speculating. We spin all kind of fantastic tales! Probably most of it is wrong, but we are told that it is more than we can hope or imagine and so we do just that! We imagine. And when we are done we sit back in awe knowing that while we were probably wrong – whatever we guessed – the reality will be even better.  I also try to imagine what it would be like to have been in certain places within scripture. I imagine the cold on my feet as I read that Peter stepped out of the boat. I imagine the thrill and exhilaration that he must have experienced. But again I hold it all loosely. Biblical imagination.

They used the right words. Our imagination must be limited by what we see as true in scripture. It is at this point that I think they fail. Our fate in the afterlife is determined by our choices in this life. We are not free to imagine things that are contrary to scripture. I will deal more with this in future posts.

Tags: , , , ,

Posted in Eschatology, Heaven, Hell | Comments Off

Older Posts »